Transcript Field Olfactometry Odor Measurement Penn State Odor Assessment Laboratory UMES Odor Assessment Kick-off Training August 16 – 18, 2011 University Park, PA R.C.

Field Olfactometry
Odor Measurement
Penn State Odor Assessment Laboratory
UMES Odor Assessment Kick-off Training
August 16 – 18, 2011
University Park, PA
R.C. Brandt, PhD, PE
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
How are Odor
Samples
Secured for
Laboratory
Olfactometry?
How is Odor Threshold Concentration
Measured in Ambient Air?
Field Olfactometer
Is Field Olfactometry a New
Idea?
Scentometer®
• Research sponsored by
the U.S. Public Health
Service, 1958
• Originally manufactured
by Barnebey-Cheney
Corp, early 1960’s
• Now manufactured &
sold by Barnebey and
Sutcliff Corp.
Photo image by St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
Dilution of Odor in
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Observer
Nuisance?
Air Flow
D/T 2 4 7 15 30 60
Dilution-to-Threshold using Field Olfactometry
Odor
Source
Original Scentometer
D/T Interpretation
D/T
Word Category
2
Noticeable
7
Objectionable
15
Nuisance
31
Nauseating
How Are
Odor
Panelists
Selected?
Normal Population
Smell Bell
Chart image by St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
Pen-Test Sensitivity History
Odor Sensitivity Testing Results-Test Subject 522
16
Mean = 9.85
One Std. Deviation = 3.03
One Std. Error =0.677
Pen Test Result
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
1
2
3
4
7/14/05
8/12/05
8/22/05
11/2/05
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
5
6
7
8
9
10
5/15/06
5/17/06
5/24/06
6/5/06
6/21/06
7/14/06
Odor Sensitivity Test Event
Odor Sensitivity Testing Results-Test Subject 560
16
Mean = 11.5
One Std. Deviation = 3.84
One Std. Error =1.21
Pen Test Result
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
1
2
3
4
5
5/14/06
5/15/06
5/25/06
5/31/06
7/9/06
Odor Sensitivity Test Event
Why Field Olfactometry?
Advantages:
 On-site “REAL-TIME” measurement
 No need for sample collection
 Lower detection levels possible
 Relatively low cost
Disadvantages:
 Does not provide emission rate
 Variable field conditions
 Personnel logistics
Multiple Assessor Repeat Observation
Field Olfactometry Protocol
Use of Manure Rings for Assessment
of Dairy Odors from Alternative
Application Methods
Prevailing
Wind
Direction
10 foot wide swath of
manure (6000 gal/acre)
Odor
Panel
200 foot
diameter
manure ring
Advantages:
1. Eliminates wind
direction as a primary
source of variance
2. Maintains constant odor
assessor distance
from odor source
Pre-application
20
<1.0 hr
2 to 4 hrs
Shallow Disk
Field Olfactometry D/T (BET10)
18
16
a
24 hrs
Direct
Ground
Injection
14
b
12
10
c
8
d
6
d
e
4
2
0
Surface
Aeration
Infiltration
Surface +
Chisel
Shallow
Disk
Land Application Method
DGI
Control
Field Olfactometry D/T
versus Time
Average NRO D/T (Log BET10)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Error bars represent
one standard error.
A
0.5
Data with same character are not
significantly different (a=0.05)
B
B
0.4
0.3
0.2
C
0.1
0
0h
n = 96
1h
n = 95
2-4 h
n = 95
24 h
n = 96
Field NRO Observation Time Following Manure Application
Use of Inventory Management to
Mitigate Odor Emissions From
Land-Applied Biosolids
Hannum Farm Odor Study - Field Olfactometer
Best Estimate Odor Threshold
Field Olfactometer BET 10
25
Pre-Application
<1 hr
10 hrs
A
20
15
4 hrs
B
B
10
Next Morning
Same letter indicates
no statistical
difference .....
composited over time
(α=0.05).
C
5
0
3-Day
10-Day
50-Day
Treatment/ Biosolids Age
No Biosolids
Supra-Theshold Intensity (100-pt. scale)
Sensory Comparisons Odor Intensity versus Log BET10
Supra-Threshold Odor Intensity vs LogBET 10
25
20
y = 12.20x + 2.07
R² = 0.75
15
10
r=0.87
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
LogBET 10
1.0
1.2
1.4
Sensory Comparisons Hedonic Tone versus Log BET10
Hedonic Tone vs LogBET 10
Hedonic Tone (22-pt. scale)
1.0
LogBET10
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
y = -2.23x + 0.31
R² = 0.79
r=0.89
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Sensory Comparisons Intensity versus Hedonic Tone
Supra-Thrshold Intensity (100-pt. scale)
Intensity vs Hedonic Tone
25
20
15
y = -5.26x + 3.90
R² = 0.85
10
r=0.92
5
0
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
Hedonic Tone (22-pt. scale)
0.0
0.5
1.0
Use of Field Olfactometry for
Quantification of WWTP
Dewatering Facility Odors
Penrose Avenue
2
1
3
4
5
6
11
12
10
9A
8
9B
7
Field Olfactometry D/T (BET10)
70
Field Olfactometer D/T (BET 10)
60
7/14/2008
7/15/2008
7/21/2008
50
7/22/2008
40
30
20
10
7 BET 10
0
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Observation Station
#9A
#9B
#10
#11
#12
Sensory Comparisons
Odor Intensity versus Log BET10
Odor Intensity (100-pt Scale)
Odor Intensity versus Log BET10
35
30
8
y = 16.05x + 0.79
R² = 0.98
25
9A
9B
20
15
7
11
10
102
12 4
5
6
r=0.99
3
Data point station IDs shown
51
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Log BET 10
1.5
2.0
Sensory Comparisons
Hedonic Tone versus Log BET10
Log BET 10
0.0
Hedonic Tone (22-pt Scale)
0
-1
0.5
5
1
1.0
12
10
42
2.0
3
6
-2
1.5
11
7
y = -2.56x + 0.12
R² = 0.98
-3
9B
-4
r=0.99
9A
Data point station IDs shown
8
-5
Odor Hedonic Tone versus Log BET 10
Swine Manure Odor Ring Study
Log BET10 and % odor Reduction
Poultry House Odor Mitigation using
Shelterbelt vegetation
Layer House
Fans
W
M
Air Sample
Locations
B
E
NR PERC Field Maps 7-23-06.ppt
27
Field olfactometry results suggest shelterbelt
vegetation may assist odor mitigation.
Field Olfactometer D/T (LogBET10)
1.2
Bars represent one standard error.
1.0
Without Trees
With Trees
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
West
Middle
Observation Location
East
Background
Field + Laboratory Olfactometry
USDA-NRCS CIG Grant: Promoting adoption of innovative
conservation cropping systems on livestock farms.
Field Olfactometry Indicates
Shallow Disk Injection Reduces
Dairy Manure Odors by 66%
Lab Olfactometry Indicates Shallow
Disk Injection Reduces Dairy
Manure Odors by 58%
Take-Home Point
Field olfactometry works!
This technology can provide
vital information for
high-value decision-making
Questions?